file synch software

Hi

I've been looking round for a piece of software which will allow a very
small number of files to be kept in synch over three Windows boxes (one
each of XP, 2000 and 98) at three separate physical locations all
connected by DSL.

It needs to be simple because two of the people are quite nontechnical
and it needs to be secure because the files contain sensitive
information.

It is not possible to run multiple instances of the file(s), so as one
user is using the file(s) the other(s) must be locked out.

I don't need any other collaborative/synchronisation tools at all, just
the capacity to sync these few files.

brett.shand@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been looking round for a piece of software which will allow a very
> small number of files to be kept in synch over three Windows boxes (one
> each of XP, 2000 and 98) at three separate physical locations all
> connected by DSL.
>
> It needs to be simple because two of the people are quite nontechnical
> and it needs to be secure because the files contain sensitive
> information.
>
> It is not possible to run multiple instances of the file(s), so as one
> user is using the file(s) the other(s) must be locked out.
>
Hmmm, that's quite a shopping list you have there. Are the files text
files or binary files? Does one box contain the master file whilst the
other contain just copies, or can each of them change the files?


> I don't need any other collaborative/synchronisation tools at all, just
> the capacity to sync these few files.
>

Mark Carter wrote:

> Hmmm, that's quite a shopping list you have there. Are the files text
> files or binary files? Does one box contain the master file whilst the
> other contain just copies, or can each of them change the files?

Yes, I agree it's a long and maybe unrealistic list of wants/needs. The
files are executables and each box can and will have to change the
files. The files are stand-alone FoxPro programmes, they are clunky
dogs, but they are what I have to work with and to be fair they do the
job they were designed to do. More or less

I'm beginning to think the best way would be to get a cgi script
written and use an ftp server.

brett.shand@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been looking round for a piece of software which will allow a very
> small number of files to be kept in synch over three Windows boxes (one
> each of XP, 2000 and 98) at three separate physical locations all
> connected by DSL.
>
> It needs to be simple because two of the people are quite nontechnical
> and it needs to be secure because the files contain sensitive
> information.
>
> It is not possible to run multiple instances of the file(s), so as one
> user is using the file(s) the other(s) must be locked out.
>
> I don't need any other collaborative/synchronisation tools at all, just
> the capacity to sync these few files.

You could try Foldershare http://www.foldershare.com

MW

brett.shand@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi
>
> I've been looking round for a piece of software which will allow a very
> small number of files to be kept in synch over three Windows boxes (one
> each of XP, 2000 and 98) at three separate physical locations all
> connected by DSL.
>
> It needs to be simple because two of the people are quite nontechnical
> and it needs to be secure because the files contain sensitive
> information.
>
> It is not possible to run multiple instances of the file(s), so as one
> user is using the file(s) the other(s) must be locked out.
>
> I don't need any other collaborative/synchronisation tools at all, just
> the capacity to sync these few files.
>

Dang, Brett;

Nice, tight requirements. The only problem I keep stumbling over is
end-user experience. Short of that though, have you considered using a
versioning system such as cvs or subversion? Whatever you come up with,
please let us know.

-Craig

Thanks martyn I looked at it already, but it seemsa it runs only on XP
and W2K. Part of the frustration!

Yes Craig, it does have to be straight-forward. The others are not
fools at all, just very little experience.

I know subversion by name that's all, I have no experience with it. It
is certainly much more than I need but that's not necessarily a
problem, but that it's all command line at the client end (do I have
that right?) I think will be.

This is strange. This must surely be a very common problem and yet
there seems to be no solution. Anyone want to make a million bucks? :-)

I think the solution will have to be an sftp site and a small cgi
script.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

brett.shand@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks martyn I looked at it already, but it seemsa it runs only on XP
> and W2K. Part of the frustration!

Yes, and Macs. I use it to sync my Mac and two PCs. Saved me the cost
of .Mac

Pity about the Win 98 machine - no chance of upgrading, I take it?

Martyn W wrote:

> Pity about the Win 98 machine - no chance of upgrading, I take it?

There is a new XP machine coming I believe which will replace the Win98
box. I think that I'm just going to have to cart the files round on
flash drive for a while. Sigh

Unless I can persuade my son to write the cgi script. Blackmail and/or
bribery is on the horizon I think.

brett.shand@gmail.com wrote:
> Mark Carter wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm, that's quite a shopping list you have there. Are the files text
>>files or binary files? Does one box contain the master file whilst the
>>other contain just copies, or can each of them change the files?
>
>
> Yes, I agree it's a long and maybe unrealistic list of wants/needs. The
> files are executables and each box can and will have to change the
> files. The files are stand-alone FoxPro programmes, they are clunky
> dogs, but they are what I have to work with and to be fair they do the
> job they were designed to do. More or less

AHA. In that case, it appears that you have problems.

> I'm beginning to think the best way would be to get a cgi script
> written and use an ftp server.

If you have an ftp server, then it would be simpler to ditch cgi
scripts, and just use ftp.

Also, can't you jsut keep the files in one place, and then execute them
from a different machine? If I had an Access database, for instance, I
could keep it on a server, but I could "open it up" on any machine
connected to the server.